Speaking of rankling, I suspect this post by Andrew Day at The Week is sure to rankle some. In it he argues that NATO should bar the door to Ukrainian admission to its ranks permanently:
We’ll never know whether serious diplomacy could have averted the war, but it may yet resolve the crisis. The Biden administration should work with European allies to broker a settlement that makes Ukraine a neutral state. Formal neutrality is far better than being a battleground of great powers — and cuts both ways. If Russia withdraws all military forces and stops interfering with its smaller neighbor, NATO’s door should stay closed to Ukraine.
My purpose in this post is not to argue the merits of his proposal but to ask a different question. When did NATO stop being a purely defensive alliance and become an aggressive one?
I would suggest it was in 1994 when NATO aircraft attacked a target within the Sarajevo Exclusion Zone at the request of UNPROFOR, the United Nations Protective Force. I believe it could reasonably be argued that the attack was illegal since UNPROFOR did not have the authority to make such a request but whether that is true or not the attack was not in defense of NATO or a NATO country.
Since then, of course, NATO has been involved in a number of aggressive actions including in Serbia (1999) and Libya (2011).
The significance of this is that the transition from a strictly defensive alliance to one pursuing, um, other objectives was not in response to Soviet or Russian aggression but stepped into the vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
My own view is that I think that NATO as originally constituted should have been dissolved in 1990 following German reunification or, possibly, 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, possibly succeeded by another alliance with who knows what objectives. But after 1991 NATO has been a military alliance without a clear purpose.
“But after 1991 NATO has been a military alliance without a clear purpose.”
Yup. Russia would ever engage in aggressive war.
Steve
Yes, after nearly thirty years of threatening and aggressive moves by the U. S. and NATO. Can’t ever trust them Russkis.
So, you’re saying that we have no agency?
Maybe we should give you a reset button, Dave, and an air ticket to Moscow.
Look, your final paragraph that steve cited may be true. NATO is a mess. But can we stop with the bullshit about how Russia is some poor aggrieved little child and NATO is the abusive parent. This is real world. Russia are cold blooded miserable fucks, capable of who knows what.
Much better to rethink NATO (a concept that he who must be destroyed floated to so much disdain) – so let’s put the blame where it belongs – on the Deep State.
My point is not that the invasion of Ukraine was justified. It wasn’t.
But the Russians aren’t insane either. The alliance arrayed against them includes one country that occupied a swathe of their territory for a couple of hundred years and has people who want to occupy it again, another that invaded them, and a third that invaded them in living memory, killing 10% of their population in the process. The fourth, by far the largest and most powerful, has been running around the world attacking countries and overthrowing governments. Under the circumstances feeling threatened isn’t irrational.
What’s the reasonable stance? I don’t think it’s parking nuclear weapons on their border.
It’s purpose as stated by our Secretary of Defense is to weaken Russia to the point they are incapable of further aggression.
Bait the bear and when it lashes out, bleed it and weaken it so than it will come sheepishly to the negotiating table.
Never mind those nukes, the bear is too civilized for that.
“Yes, after nearly thirty years of threatening and aggressive moves by the U. S. and NATO.”
So these threatening actions mostly consist of countries that are afraid Russia will invade them ask to join NATO and they get accepted. Apparently Russia has no agency as they are not able to make themselves less threatening. Maybe Russia might realize when they stuff like they should reform the Russian Empire and other countries are not real countries or they are really just Little Russians so they should be part of Russia, that is not reassuring for those countries. Maybe Russia helps those other develop economically rather than treat them as economic vassals.
Steve
Let’s make a little list of countries that we have invaded or bombed over the last 30 years, shall we?
Serbia–not afraid Russia will invade it
Iraq–not afraid Russia will invade it
Libya–not afraid Russia will invade it.
Somalia–not afraid Russia will invade it
Sudan–not afraid Russia will invade it
Syria–not afraid Russia will invade it
Yemen–not afraid Russia will invade it
Of those only Somalia was legal—it was a UN op. Steve, you have to admit that we have been very aggressive over the last 30 years. Russia didn’t make us that way and we weren’t countering Russian advances. I deliberately left out Afghanistan because a) it was justified (stupid but justified) and b) given the history they might have been afraid that Russia would invade
Now let’s make a list of countries that Russia has invaded since the collapse of the Soviet Union:
Georgia
Ukraine
Not including Syria because the Russian were invited by the legitimate government of Syria to assist them. Not including Chechnya since it’s part of Russia. Of Russia and the U. S. which has been the more aggressive?
Keep in mind I’m not pro-Russian. I’m anti-anti-Russian. It’s a subtle distinction but an important one at least to me. The Russians aren’t good guys but neither are we. Guess what? Of the two of us believe it or not the Russians are more popular around the world. We are rather clearly doing something wrong.
You know I have complained that we are much too willing to bomb or invade other countries. We usually go in with no clear end game or plans. That said, the issue I brought up was former Soviet countries afraid of Russia. I have no idea how that is related to the US being overly aggressive. Total non-sequitur. However, in none of those cases were we intending to occupy those countries and turn them into part of the US. In none of those (maybe Syria?) were we acting alone.You dont find some US politician for life claiming that we have some special God given right to annex sovereign countries.
Only 2 outright attacks, but there are Russian troops sitting inside of other countries making sure they behave. No war, just occupied. There are sizable Russian minorities in some of those former Soviet countries. They know, just like with Ukraine, that absent the protection of NATO Russia can and will use that as an excuse to invade. Based upon the words of Russia’s leadership, words you have cited here before, claiming that Russia wants to re-establish its empire PLUS its actions tell me why those countries should not be worried.
Steve
It’s not a non sequitur because I have been saying for some time that the NATO operation in Serbia was taken very seriously both by Russia and China. Both believe, for example, that the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was deliberate. Russia’s interpretation of that NATO operation was that it was dismantling a state into little statelets. They identified with that situation. They think that’s our intention with respect to Russia.
I could go on through each of those examples and explain why they’re relevant but I think you get the idea.
I also think you underestimate how every country in Latin America feels threatened by the U. S. or how every country in East Asia feels threatened by China. That’s the nature of being a big, powerful country.